I think it's more of a case of "If enough people complain, it will be gone" rather than "If we find something bad, it will be gone". Sure, extreme racist stuff and pornography will always be removed, but i think rodrigos map was removed because some people complained about a list of words they had found during multiple playthroughs. If a blizzard representative had played it and seen a word that they banned it for, nothing would have happened.
I for one support Blizzard. I dont want to see inappropriate crap maps for lulz ffs. Their rules are pretty standard, and atleast unlike other companies, they take an interest in the community and wont let the custom maps degrade into advertising maps/pornos/hate stuff.
Stop being whiny b1tches.
To be quite honest, I feel as though this was an incredibly ignorant statement. The majority complaint doesn't fall in the category of not being able to make maps that advertise, display pornographic images, and hate, it actually (as you can read) has more to do with the fact that Blizzard has said that they have the power to judge our maps based on popular game material such as violence and even religion. For example: Bioshock was and is an amazing game with an in depth storyline and great action. It definitely had quite a bit of violence and even some sexual "references". It also portrayed a lot of various opinions on religion. Would blizzard deem it as an all around inappropriate concept if it were being judged based on their criteria?
Blizzard sent me an email with the list of bad words that caused Nexus Word Wars to be banned. Apparently, there was more offensive words on my dictionary, such as "jesus."
Blizzard sent me an email with the list of bad words that caused Nexus Word Wars to be banned. Apparently, there was more offensive words on my dictionary, such as "jesus."
This is actually quite funny because if this is truly their view on things, then there are a lot of content in the campaign that should be deemed inappropriate.
There are two key things you need to realize - context and connotation.
The context of a word is as relevant as its meaning. This is why Nexus Word Wars was hit so hard - it wasn't some character saying shit in a campaign in a situation where it would make sense. You have to realize that a good amount of people actually have to be offended and report the map to even do anything - people don't get offended because the word "dyke" is used in reference to a levee, but when you remove any context from it, it could very easily be interpreted as offensive (also, in the US, I've never heard anyone use the word "dyke" in reference to a levee). It's probably just best to stay away from having words with ambiguous meanings that could be interpreted as offensive, especially when given without context. A word like "tug" would not be offensive, because no one would even think of that as sexual, and even if they did no one reasonable would be annoyed by it.
Secondly, about half of the "draconian restrictions" that Blizzard is enforcing specifically mention connotations, not reference. This means that it doesn't matter that your map references the continent of Europe or the countries within. What matters is if you try to imply that Great Britain is the worst country in the world to live in, that everyone who lives there is actually moderately retarded, etc.
@illegal drugs/activities, stimulants aren't necessarily illegal drugs, and stimpacks are obviously not illegal. If you want to depict illegal actions (someone mentioned the party game "Mafia"), try doing it in a way that doesn't actually imply illegal actions. For example, regarding Mafia, you could have the mafia be a bunch of shapeshifting aliens, and suddenly you can end up with the same game, but without anything that could even remotely imply illegal actions.
Extreme violence does not mean "people shooting each other". I would recommend you try to avoid including mutilation and brutally explicit torture.
There are two key things you need to realize - context and connotation.
The context of a word is as relevant as its meaning. This is why Nexus Word Wars was hit so hard - it wasn't some character saying shit in a campaign in a situation where it would make sense. You have to realize that a good amount of people actually have to be offended and report the map to even do anything - people don't get offended because the word "dyke" is used in reference to a levee, but when you remove any context from it, it could very easily be interpreted as offensive (also, in the US, I've never heard anyone use the word "dyke" in reference to a levee). It's probably just best to stay away from having words with ambiguous meanings that could be interpreted as offensive, especially when given without context. A word like "tug" would not be offensive, because no one would even think of that as sexual, and even if they did no one reasonable would be annoyed by it.
Secondly, about half of the "draconian restrictions" that Blizzard is enforcing specifically mention connotations, not reference. This means that it doesn't matter that your map references the continent of Europe or the countries within. What matters is if you try to imply that Great Britain is the worst country in the world to live in, that everyone who lives there is actually moderately retarded, etc.
@illegal drugs/activities, stimulants aren't necessarily illegal drugs, and stimpacks are obviously not illegal. If you want to depict illegal actions (someone mentioned the party game "Mafia"), try doing it in a way that doesn't actually imply illegal actions. For example, regarding Mafia, you could have the mafia be a bunch of shapeshifting aliens, and suddenly you can end up with the same game, but without anything that could even remotely imply illegal actions.
Extreme violence does not mean "people shooting each other". I would recommend you try to avoid including mutilation and brutally explicit torture.
the words in NWW have no context they are just words... how can someone get offended by them? Your argument is not on par my friend.
"Cocksucker" is also "just" a word. It's still quite offensive, and I would be willing to bet that you can easily find people who will be offended by it, even when it is just presented alone.
Dyke is also offensive to many people. Despite the fact that it is also used to refer to a dike, the slang usage (which, more often than not, is used in the same derogatory sense as "faggot") is the primary use of the word in many places.
"Cocksucker" is also "just" a word. It's still quite offensive, and I would be willing to bet that you can easily find people who will be offended by it, even when it is just presented alone.
Dyke is also offensive to many people. Despite the fact that it is also used to refer to a dike, the slang usage (which, more often than not, is used in the same derogatory sense as "faggot") is the primary use of the word in many places.
Are you seriously on Blizzard's side with this? that's my real question.
It's this type of shit that kept me from buying the game to begin with. I mean, I look at it like this. If Blizzard didn't -FORCE- us to host our maps on their servers, they would have no responsibility over the content we put out. It's why there was no problem with bad maps in WC3 or SC. Because Blizzard had no responsibility.
But then they make this shit, force us to use their system, and then go all nazi on what we can and can not make/play. It's bullshit. Let us do peer to peer hosting like we've done for the past twelve fucking years, say that you have no responsibility over the content of maps, and let everyone be fucking happy. Jesus goddamned fucking christ I can't stand this big brother bullshit now days. I don't need blizzard to shelter me from bad words, if I don't like them, I won't play maps with them, is it really so fucking hard?
I really do hope the players rise up and tell Blizzard to fuck off, but I know it wont happen, and I know that even if it did, it wouldn't matter. Blizzard already has all of your money, why do they care if you're happy?
@QMJ3: Go
They're probably using a spell checker with American English. It's "dike" for AE and "dyke" for BE.
~ Afk now, Ima construct myself some dykes ~
I think it's more of a case of "If enough people complain, it will be gone" rather than "If we find something bad, it will be gone". Sure, extreme racist stuff and pornography will always be removed, but i think rodrigos map was removed because some people complained about a list of words they had found during multiple playthroughs. If a blizzard representative had played it and seen a word that they banned it for, nothing would have happened.
@s3rius: Go
lol right. Welp, I've lost interest in this thread entirely. I wonder what's happening elsewhere in the world that matters...
(All 33 Chilean Miners Rescued! Hooray!)
@EternalWraith: Go
To be quite honest, I feel as though this was an incredibly ignorant statement. The majority complaint doesn't fall in the category of not being able to make maps that advertise, display pornographic images, and hate, it actually (as you can read) has more to do with the fact that Blizzard has said that they have the power to judge our maps based on popular game material such as violence and even religion. For example: Bioshock was and is an amazing game with an in depth storyline and great action. It definitely had quite a bit of violence and even some sexual "references". It also portrayed a lot of various opinions on religion. Would blizzard deem it as an all around inappropriate concept if it were being judged based on their criteria?
Blizzard sent me an email with the list of bad words that caused Nexus Word Wars to be banned. Apparently, there was more offensive words on my dictionary, such as "jesus."
You can see the full list on the link below: http://forums.sc2mapster.com/general/general-chat/13745-blizzards-letter-about-nexus-word-wars/
This is actually quite funny because if this is truly their view on things, then there are a lot of content in the campaign that should be deemed inappropriate.
You guys are really missing the point here.
There are two key things you need to realize - context and connotation.
The context of a word is as relevant as its meaning. This is why Nexus Word Wars was hit so hard - it wasn't some character saying shit in a campaign in a situation where it would make sense. You have to realize that a good amount of people actually have to be offended and report the map to even do anything - people don't get offended because the word "dyke" is used in reference to a levee, but when you remove any context from it, it could very easily be interpreted as offensive (also, in the US, I've never heard anyone use the word "dyke" in reference to a levee). It's probably just best to stay away from having words with ambiguous meanings that could be interpreted as offensive, especially when given without context. A word like "tug" would not be offensive, because no one would even think of that as sexual, and even if they did no one reasonable would be annoyed by it.
Secondly, about half of the "draconian restrictions" that Blizzard is enforcing specifically mention connotations, not reference. This means that it doesn't matter that your map references the continent of Europe or the countries within. What matters is if you try to imply that Great Britain is the worst country in the world to live in, that everyone who lives there is actually moderately retarded, etc.
@illegal drugs/activities, stimulants aren't necessarily illegal drugs, and stimpacks are obviously not illegal. If you want to depict illegal actions (someone mentioned the party game "Mafia"), try doing it in a way that doesn't actually imply illegal actions. For example, regarding Mafia, you could have the mafia be a bunch of shapeshifting aliens, and suddenly you can end up with the same game, but without anything that could even remotely imply illegal actions.
Extreme violence does not mean "people shooting each other". I would recommend you try to avoid including mutilation and brutally explicit torture.
the words in NWW have no context they are just words... how can someone get offended by them? Your argument is not on par my friend.
"Cocksucker" is also "just" a word. It's still quite offensive, and I would be willing to bet that you can easily find people who will be offended by it, even when it is just presented alone.
Dyke is also offensive to many people. Despite the fact that it is also used to refer to a dike, the slang usage (which, more often than not, is used in the same derogatory sense as "faggot") is the primary use of the word in many places.
@fernsauce: Go
Considering that words such as "lesbian", "Dyke", and etc are banned, how would I reference this group of people?
Same goes for "gays", "homosexuals" (is that banned?), "fags", "faggots"
If the word "Jesus" is banned, how would I reference this deity?
Are you seriously on Blizzard's side with this? that's my real question.
It's this type of shit that kept me from buying the game to begin with. I mean, I look at it like this. If Blizzard didn't -FORCE- us to host our maps on their servers, they would have no responsibility over the content we put out. It's why there was no problem with bad maps in WC3 or SC. Because Blizzard had no responsibility.
But then they make this shit, force us to use their system, and then go all nazi on what we can and can not make/play. It's bullshit. Let us do peer to peer hosting like we've done for the past twelve fucking years, say that you have no responsibility over the content of maps, and let everyone be fucking happy. Jesus goddamned fucking christ I can't stand this big brother bullshit now days. I don't need blizzard to shelter me from bad words, if I don't like them, I won't play maps with them, is it really so fucking hard?
I really do hope the players rise up and tell Blizzard to fuck off, but I know it wont happen, and I know that even if it did, it wouldn't matter. Blizzard already has all of your money, why do they care if you're happy?
I have a question.
If our campaign (Purity of Form) isn't hosted by Battle.net, does it still need to conform with Blizzard's content policies?
Of course not.
I have a question.
Why on Earth would you bump a topic a massive 100 days after it's death?
Because I had a question regarding inappropriate content policies and there was already a thread on that subject.